Thread: Light Combat Aircraft(lCA) and Combat Aircraft Trainer(CAT)

Air Marshall RajKumar has really spelled out a lot of technical information. After going through what he has mentioned, the avoinics suite of LCA looks uptodate. IAF will NEED this aircraft badly.

BTW IG4U looks like Real Madrid got beaten really bad. Change the club

Originally Posted by uss

The SU 30MKI uses the Tarang RWR and El 8222 as the jammer. The israelis are supposed to be the best at this and hence (among other reasons) have modified their Vipers to the Soufa standard.

Please elaborate on why you think the APG 80 (is it?, i keep getting those darned designations wrong?) would have an advantage over the Bars NO11M-mk3? Just saying it is AESA does not mean that it will automatically make the viper runover the mki. The bars has one BIG advantage (power and range), the f1660's teeny radar would indeed be hard put to beat the Bars on these 2 points.

In terms of rcs, while it is said that the f16 has reduced rcs features making it really small (1m^2), it is not exactly known what the rcs for the mki is; i'm betting it is not that of a normal flanker (10 m^2).

It would be a very tough fight indeed between the blk 60 and the MKI. does any one have any idea when the IAF will exercise with the Israeli AF? It was supposed to happen soon after Garuda; perhaps they will take on the Soufa and this should definitely be an interesting set up.

Regards,
USS.

Some numbers I found googling:
Remember 350 KM figure for Bar is versus a loaded basic su-27 variant, so against a normal lift off F-16, it will be much less, although the RCS of F-16 is probably greater than 1 square meter. Let's use the 10:1 ratio for a sec.
Detection formula:
[New RCS/Old RCS]^.25 * original detection range= new detection range
so, for a 1 square meter target, that would be
.1^.25 * 350 = 195 KM for search and around 105 for track.
Now, we don't know if this is really achievable or not.

As for APG-80, I'm not sure what it's range against su-30mki, remember, su-30mki is search for a plane with smaller rcs, but f-16 is search for a plane with larger rcs, so in reality, the range is probably in APG-80's favourite, it only needs to have a 200 KM search/110 KM track versus su-30mki, to pick up su-30mki before it picks up the f-16 block 60. Therefore, when you talk about a larger plane like su-30mki vs f-16 block 60, it's radar has to have much better range to compensate for the difference in RCS.

Also, I can safely say the electronics and software in APG-80 is much better than in bar, because the software/hardware level in USA is much further ahead of Russia. If you add in the fact that APG-80 is an AESA radar, you have quite an advantage now. Aside from radar, there is still the issue of the rest of the avionics. You might have noticed that the early su-27s were still using analog systems. That should tell you the distance between Russia and the west.

Originally Posted by generation_x

Air Marshall RajKumar has really spelled out a lot of technical information. After going through what he has mentioned, the avoinics suite of LCA looks uptodate. IAF will NEED this aircraft badly.

It's avionics suite looks pretty standard for a fourth generation aircraft, nothing exceptional.

Originally Posted by tphuang

Some numbers I found googling:
Remember 350 KM figure for Bar is versus a loaded basic su-27 variant, so against a normal lift off F-16, it will be much less, although the RCS of F-16 is probably greater than 1 square meter. Let's use the 10:1 ratio for a sec.
Detection formula:
[New RCS/Old RCS]^.25 * original detection range= new detection range
so, for a 1 square meter target, that would be
.1^.25 * 350 = 195 KM for search and around 105 for track.
Now, we don't know if this is really achievable or not.

As for APG-80, I'm not sure what it's range against su-30mki, remember, su-30mki is search for a plane with smaller rcs, but f-16 is search for a plane with larger rcs, so in reality, the range is probably in APG-80's favourite, it only needs to have a 200 KM search/110 KM track versus su-30mki, to pick up su-30mki before it picks up the f-16 block 60. Therefore, when you talk about a larger plane like su-30mki vs f-16 block 60, it's radar has to have much better range to compensate for the difference in RCS.

Also, I can safely say the electronics and software in APG-80 is much better than in bar, because the software/hardware level in USA is much further ahead of Russia. If you add in the fact that APG-80 is an AESA radar, you have quite an advantage now. Aside from radar, there is still the issue of the rest of the avionics. You might have noticed that the early su-27s were still using analog systems. That should tell you the distance between Russia and the west.

Couple of points:

I'm not sure the RCS of the F16 blk60 will be so small ( i was thinking of the block 52+ when I gave that 1m^2 figure), the blk 60 is not called the "fat' viper for nothing . I agree with you that the blk 60 probly uses better technology (esp. with regards to sensor fusion, radar etc), however, the MKI is no ordinary Su 27; its avionics is a very decent mix of latest french/israeli and indian
tech. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Ai...ecs/index.html.

I again reiterate that it would not be easy to make a decision as to which a/c would come out on top on a given day. The blk 60 has some advantages for sure, but so does the MKI (missile range and manouverability among others). If any a/c does have an edge, it will be very minor it seems.

In other departments however, the MKI has some major advantages:
you could probly have 2 MKIs at the cost of one blk60. Not to mention combat range and amount of weapons carried as well (which of course is a consequence of being an a/c of a heavier class).

Regards,
uss.

Originally Posted by uss

Couple of points:

I'm not sure the RCS of the F16 blk60 will be so small ( i was thinking of the block 52+ when I gave that 1m^2 figure), the blk 60 is not called the "fat' viper for nothing . I agree with you that the blk 60 probly uses better technology (esp. with regards to sensor fusion, radar etc), however, the MKI is no ordinary Su 27; its avionics is a very decent mix of latest french/israeli and indian
tech. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Ai...ecs/index.html.

I again reiterate that it would not be easy to make a decision as to which a/c would come out on top on a given day. The blk 60 has some advantages for sure, but so does the MKI (missile range and manouverability among others). If any a/c does have an edge, it will be very minor it seems.

In other departments however, the MKI has some major advantages:
you could probly have 2 MKIs at the cost of one blk60. Not to mention combat range and amount of weapons carried as well (which of course is a consequence of being an a/c of a heavier class).

Regards,
uss.

The question is not cost, but rather their pure capabilities. However, in real world, I agree that it does play a huge factor.

As I've stated, MKI avionics is improving, but there is still quite a huge gap. It has more MFDs, but that's because it's a 2 seat plane. The rest of it look pretty standard. By the way, does it have HMS and what kind of FBW does it use?

I'd think just based on the accuracy of AIM-120 missile and the avionics, F-16 block 60 might destroy su-30mki before they get close enough that the maneouverability of su-30mki really helps. Although, it does help with dodging misisle, but maneouverability helps more in dogfights.

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

My blood is white !!!
Hala Madrid.

Come on man you know Barcelona is a better club . Change the club ... go Barcelona

Originally Posted by uss

Tphuang,
What do you mean "pure capabilities"? Does this not include an a/c's range, amount of weapons carried, aerodynamic performance, safety features, tvc etc? Or is it just radar and avionics that make up an a/c? While F16blk 60 avionics may be highly advanced and make the plane easier to fly, don't forget that the MKI has 2 pilots to share the workload thereby achieving a similar result. Also, do you think that the R77rvvae is not an accurate missile?

If this is just a paper theoretical comparison, we still don't know the exact RCS figures of the MKI, nor of the blk 60...only after which can some reasonable comparison be made. but what kind of rcs does the blk 60 have with CFTs, drop tanks and external weapons? Also, in a 2Vs2 scenario things may change considerably and dogfights may become a definite possibility. If the f16 is carrying those cfts or drop tanks, wont it become considerably draggy? OTOH, the su 30 (even the ordinary Ks) are well known to maintain aerodynamic performance on a full load.

yes the su 30mki does have an HMS (sura or szarkov), even the IAF mig 21 bisons have hms. And a digital fbw to boot. Quadriplex with one analog channel if i'm not mistaken..

Again, the f16 seems to have reached its very end in evolution with the blk 60. OTOH, the MKI is bound to evolve further (irbis aesa, brahmos, python/derby etc)
I'm not sure that the f16 blk 60 will come out a winner vs the su 30 mki as it stands today; the future would make this even more clear.

Regards,
USS.

two pilots - one main pilot, one support. Have you ever seen two people playing against one person in table tennis. Both try to gain control, but neither can. That's why two pilots has no real advantage. You only want one person to control the fighter at once. Take a look at the new computer processors put into block 60, they are very impressive. As for not evoluting, that's because F-22 and F-35 are out, they don't need to evolute anymore. If they try, it can still get redesigned to even better planes. They can always be equipped with better AAM in the future and better radar.

As for RCS of block 60, I'm sure a newer block isn't going to have high RCS than older one. With each new generation, they can take technology gained from previous generation to make planes more stealthy. Just because a plane is larger, it doesn't mean it has higher RCS. Again, you are guessing that block 60 would become more draggy. I agree that su-30mki has better manevouerability. However, it suffers in avionics and long range AAM in comparison to American planes.

As for AA-12, it is a good AAM and an accurate one. I'm saying compared to the best American AAM, it doesn't have the same level as guidance. There is not much the Russians can do really. Their software industry just isn't on the same level as the American one.

As for FBW, it better have quadriplex FBW. That's nothing outstanding for a plane that's in 4.5 generation. Same with HMS.